In April 2014, I started watching “Elysium” when I observed that it had arrived in my library. I grimaced my way through roughly 45 minutes and either fell asleep or became unavoidably detained. Then I just never got around to picking it back up again and wound up having to return the disc in order to avoid facing a fine.

I kept telling myself that I needed to pick it up just to finish it for the sole purpose of formulating some coherent thoughts to write a review. This internal conversation continued for nearly an entire year inside my head until, finally, I decided to give it another go since “District 9” writer/director Neill Blomkamp would soon unleash “Chappie” on theaters everywhere.

In short, I regret this decision.

The most interesting aspect of “Elysium” is how on earth something so violently anti-capitalist, anti-1% managed to find funding in the first place. Sure, some of these movies do manage to get through, but they are usually independently financed and then released without the help of a major studio. They also seem to temper their rage, at least enough to prevent the enterprise from seeming like an all-out vilification of the wealthy.

Blomkamp formulates a compelling scenario for his film, a world where the rich have fled a polluted, overcrowded planet to inhabit Elysium. Here, in this literal representation of what the Greeks mythologized as a paradise for heroes, those who can afford it can frolic around a ring orbiting the earth knowing that their health is always secure. Of course, anyone who lives up in the air has to resemble a cartoonish villain, even Jodie Foster’s Defense Secretary Delacourt.

Matt Damon’s Max Da Costa, ailing from a workplace accident that left him exposed to dangerous radioactive material, leads the small proletariat revolution against those hoarding access to medical care. It might have made for a fascinating, discussion-worthy visualization of the figurative “class warfare” narrative that gets tossed around quite a bit in the political sphere. Instead, it’s a boring, derivative action flick where the only thing more simpleminded than the ideology is the violent melee. C /

I’ll still be stuck in 2012 at least until the Oscars are handed out and until then will be filling in with reviews of some of the movies I missed from the year. But it’s time to move forward and look ahead to 2013, which could be a great year for cinema. Several of my favorite filmmakers have projects due this year, which is what I will have to remind myself as I have to slog through a year that reportedly will give us 31 sequels and 17 reboots!

I had originally prepared a top 10 list for my most anticipated of 2013, but then I realized that since so many were TBD, there’s a chance we won’t see some of these movies until 2014. So I added three movies at the beginning of the list that premiered on the 2012 fall festival circuit but will hit theaters for paying audiences in 2013.

A year ago, Terrence Malick was critical darling with his “The Tree of Life.” Yet when “To the Wonder” arrived at Toronto and Venice, you’d have thought they were reviewing a Michael Bay movie. How someone goes from hero to zero that meteorically is curious. If nothing else, “To the Wonder” could be the most anticipated disaster of the year.

Upon its many festival stops in 2012, it was called a mixture of French New Wave with early Woody Allen. Combine that with the fact that it’s written and directed by Noah Baumbach, whose “The Squid and the Whale” knocked me off my feet, “Frances Ha” sounds like a movie custom-made for me.

They called it a sprawling, multigenerational epic when it played Toronto. And from the trailer for Derek Cianfrance’s follow-up to the harrowing “Blue Valentine,” it looks ambitious. And honestly, I may be looking forward to this far more than several of the movies that made the ten.

Alexander Payne’s “Election” alone makes anything from the director worth anticipating. After a second writing Oscar back from a seven-year hiatus for “The Descendants,” he shortens his gap with a new movie within two years. I’m a little skeptical, though, since the cast lacks some of the pop of Payne’s previous films, and he also didn’t write this one.

The Coens have gone from 1960s Jewish suburbia in “A Serious Man” to the 1880s Wild West in “True Grit.” And now … back to the 1960s for the folk music scene of Greenwich Village? They sure like to keep us on our feet.

Scorsese. Enough said. I suspect this will be the role that wins DiCaprio his Oscar, provided he doesn’t take Best Supporting Actor for “Django Unchained” this year. With “The Great Gatsby” (see below) moving back to 2013, it assures us yet another fantastic one-two punch within the same year from DiCaprio. “Gangs of New York” and “Catch Me If You Can.” “The Departed” and “Blood Diamond.” “Shutter Island” and “Inception.” Boom, Leo comin’ at ya!

I enjoyed “The Hunger Games” this year, though I do see room for improvement in sequels. Hopefully the writer of “Slumdog Millionaire” and “127 Hours” as well as the writer of “Toy Story 3” can elevate it because I’m certainly not expecting much from the director of the middling “Water for Elephants.” And I just kind of need something to fill the void left from “Harry Potter.”

Anything shrouded in secrecy is enough to get me interested; that’s why “Prometheus” was at the top of this list for me in 2012 (that list was just mental). And I think “District 9” could be merely scratching the surface of what Neill Blomkamp is capable of. With Matt Damon and Jodie Foster headlining a sci-fi class warfare pic, this could be other-worldly levels of awesome.

Speaking of other-worldly levels of awesome, let’s talk Alfonso Cuaron’s “Gravity.” He hasn’t released a film for 7 years, but his last three films were the incredible stretch of “Y Tu Mama Tambien,” “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,” and “Children of Men.” His “Gravity” has been described as “if ‘Avatar’ had been released in 1927 a week after ‘The Jazz Singer.'” What. Warner Bros. pushed it back from 2012 for what I imagine was fine-tuning, which just has me all the more on pins and needles.

Jason Reitman, on a subjective and personal level, is probably my favorite director. He’s had a flawless 4-for-4 stretch of films in his career, and though “Young Adult” might have been a step down from “Up in the Air,” that’s because the latter was basically perfect. I’m fascinated to see what he can do with Kate Winslet and Josh Brolin.

#3
“Twelve Years a Slave” (TBD)
Directed by Steve McQueen
Written by Steve McQueen and John Ridley
Starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Brad Pitt, and Michael Fassbender

Steve McQueen’s “Hunger” was pretty good, but his “Shame” was an absolutely ingenious triumph. I can only imagine how he plans to top it in “Twelve Years a Slave,” the story of a New York man kidnapped and sold into slavery. It’s got one heck of a cast, from Michael Fassbender to Brad Pitt to Quvenzhané Wallis and Dwight Henry’s first roles post-“Beasts of the Southern Wild.” Is it too soon to cry Oscar?

Abrams did one heck of a job turning around the “Star Trek” franchise in 2009. And from the superb trailer, it looks like he plans to boldly go into Christopher Nolan territory with a beautifully lensed and incredibly emotional follow-up. I can’t wait.

I heard today that Jay-Z is going to be scoring Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation of “The Great Gatsby.” My first reaction was to rethink my placement of the movie as my most anticipated of 2013. Then, I thought about it and realized that it might be a stroke of inspired brilliance that makes the movie even better. Luhrmann is unparalleled in his ability to take old texts and make them feel alive, modern, and relevant. Just look at how he took Shakespeare’s “Romeo & Juliet” and made it relevant for a post-MTV audience. And think about how he seamlessly integrated pop songs into “Moulin Rouge,” set in 1900! Luhrmann’s flair for the theatrical and opulent borders on gaudy on several occasions but I think he’s the perfect match for F. Scott Fitzgerald’s tale of the rich and the glamorous. I have no doubt his use of 3D will serve the movie well too. All in all, his “The Great Gatsby” will most definitely be for and by our times … and could wind up being the movie that defines 2013.